[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2001290141140.31058@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 01:46:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Anyway, I think that we might make your life easier with using the
> > proposed -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn.
>
> Maybe. Though if I understand correctly, this doesn't help for any of
> the new warnings because they're for static functions, and this only
> warns about global functions.
Could you please provide a pointer where those have been
reported/analyzed?
For the cases I've seen so far, it has always been gcc deciding under
certain circumstances not to propagate __attribute__((__noreturn__)) from
callee to caller even in the cases when caller unconditionally called
callee.
AFAIU, the behavior is (and always will) be dependent on the state of gcc
optimizations, and therefore I don't see any other way than adding
__noreturn anotation transitively everywhere in order to silence objtool.
So those cases have to be fixed anyway.
What are the other cases please? Either I have completely missed those, or
they haven't been mentioned in this thread.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists